Ferreira v. Yellow Pages Group, 2010 HRTO 1820

HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL OF ONTARIO

B E T W E E N:

Olavo Ferreira

Applicant

-and-

Yellow Pages Group, Medysis Health Group, Keeshia Barksdale and Sonia Baldassi

Respondents

INTERIM DECISION

Adjudicator: Sherry Liang

Date: September 7, 2010

Citation: 2010 HRTO 1820

Indexed as: Ferreira v. Yellow Pages Group

1This is an Application filed on January 29, 2010, under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended (the “Code”). The applicant alleges discrimination in employment on the grounds of disability and age, as well as reprisal under the Code. Among other things, the applicant alleges that his termination from employment was discriminatory.

2Prior to filing this Application, the applicant filed a grievance through his union, the Canadian Office Professional Employees Local 131 (the “Union”). In this grievance, dated March 10, 2009, the applicant alleges that he was unjustly terminated contrary to the collective agreement and the Code and seeks reinstatement with full compensation and interest.

3The respondents Yellow Pages Group, Medysis Health Group (“Medysis”) and Keeshia Barksdale have filed Responses. Sonia Baldassi has not. The Union has been given notice of the Application and has not sought to intervene.

4In its Response as well as a Request for an Order During Proceedings, Yellow Pages Group asks that the Application be dismissed on the basis that it has been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding and that it is an abuse of process. Yellow Pages Group relies on the decision of an arbitrator dated February 25, 2010 (the “Award”) dismissing the applicant’s grievance. On May 4, 2010, the Union commenced an application for judicial review seeking an order from the Divisional Court quashing and setting aside the Award.

5In the alternative, Yellow Pages Group requests that the Tribunal defer consideration of the Application pending the conclusion of the arbitration process and judicial review proceedings.

6Medysis supports the request to dismiss. The applicant filed a response to the Request. He asks that his Application proceed to be heard on its merits and in the alternative, that it be deferred pending the outcome of the judicial review application.

7The Tribunal will not decide the request to dismiss at this stage. The Award, which canvasses and makes findings on many of the facts which form the basis of the Application, is currently the subject of a judicial review application. It is not clear at this point what the outcome of that application will be, and whether the award will be upheld or quashed. The outcome of that application may affect the Tribunal’s consideration of the issues raised in the request to dismiss. In these circumstances, it would be preferable to consider the request to dismiss following the conclusion of the court process.

8The Application will therefore be deferred pending the conclusion of the judicial review application. The Tribunal directs the parties’ attention to Rules 14.3 and 14.4 which outline the procedure by which the Application may be brought back on after the conclusion of that process. The request to dismiss will be dealt with by the Tribunal if the Application is re-activated.

9I am not seized of this matter.